Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38162887›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023

Distributed team processes in healthcare services: a scoping review.

Jarle Eid, Guttorm Brattebø, Johan K Jacobsen, Roar Espevik, Bjørn Helge Johnsen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jarle Eid *Centre for Crisis Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Guttorm Brattebø *Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Emergency Medical Communication, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Johan K Jacobsen *Safetec Nordic AS, Oslo, Norway.
Roar Espevik *Department of Leadership, Command and Control, Swedish Defence University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Bjørn Helge Johnsen *Department of Leadership, Command and Control, Swedish Defence University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: High-quality healthcare services is delivered by teams rather than individuals and depends heavily on multidisciplinary cooperation between dispersed healthcare professionals. The aim of this scoping review is to identify common barriers and innovative applications of technology supporting team processes and patient safety, in geographically dispersed healthcare services. Methods: Studies were identified from searches in APA PsychINFO, Epistemonikos and Medline databases, from 2010 to 2023. A detailed search strategy was performed, and studies were included, based on prior established criteria. Results: Among the 19 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria, the majority (85%) were from Europe or North America, and most studies (53%) were quantitative, with a cross-sectional study design. Several reported observed distributed team processes in training and education. Most studies described barriers and detailed how innovative approaches and technological solutions were introduced to improve communication, coordination, and shared mental models in distributed healthcare settings. A small proportion of studies (16%) used health services data to examine interpersonal exchange and team processes. Conclusion: The scoping review offer recommendations to enhance future research on distributed team processes in healthcare services.

Indexed as

coordinationdistributed teamworkhealthcarepatient safetyprehospitalshared mental model

Identifiers

PMID38162887
PMCPMC10756666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.